User talk:RadioKirk/Archive01

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, RadioKirk/Archive01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Friday (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, correct is better than "politically correct"

I noticed your question about whether it is more correct to say "breasts" or "boobs". If you check both those links, you will notice that they both link to the article on breasts, where PENIS the word boobs is noted as a valid alternative but "generally considered derogatory or vulgar". So assuming that you were making a serious point (which from the context you were), you made the correct choice. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Emma Watson

Yea, I was just about to ask you about the {{vprotected}} tag, seeings your not an admin :) I have blocked the vandals, so hopefully that will take care of it so the page shouldn't need protected. Cheers. «»Who?¿?^meta 03:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you :) RadioKirk 04:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey sorry I did'nt respond to your email, I went offline shortly after I posted this. As far as WP:RFPP, yea I didn't realize you posted it there otherwise I would have removed it myself. Sometimes its just better to post on WP:AIV so we can block the user(s) and see if that solves the problem. «»Who?¿?^meta 15:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note :) RadioKirk 17:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Gof emma.jpg

I noticed you added this image, and claim it is a publicity shot. I have tagged the image as {{nosource}} since you have not given a source for the file, and therefore no way of checking out that claim. Thanks/wangi 14:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but can you add a specific URL where the image can be seen along with licence terms? If it has indeed been released for promotional use then there is more than likely a page on the distributors website stating that - grabbing something from Yahoo Movies doesn't really cut it, since they might well have a commercial licence on the use of the image... Thanks/wangi 17:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

User 82.3.49.1

I incorrectly made this post to a non-admin. I believe this should go to your attention. RadioKirk 17:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I blocked them for 24 hours and added {{sharedip}} to their page. Although all the edits are vandalism, it is a sharedip, and there are only a few warnings on the page. Lets see how it goes being temp blocked, maybe that will curb their enthusiasm. Cheers. «»Who?¿?^meta 20:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

User 195.144.130.1

Hi Kirk. Thanks for drawing this to my attention. I believe that I have identified the student responsible and a suitable conversation will ensue! —Theo (Talk) 19:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy to hear it :) RadioKirk 04:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

You're Welcome. You deserve it, you've been doing a great job on the Emma Watson article.--Azathar 06:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Citing

Yay! Thanks for your diligent work on tracking down a citation for the Lindsay Lohan article. Now I can be much less grumpy.  :) --Yamla 18:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Emma Watson

(a) It's not usual Wikipedia style (I don't know what type of articles you've been working on); (b) it's not the usual way of writing place names in the UK; and (c) it puts pretty irrelevant information in far too prominent a position (where someone was born may be worth mentioning somewhere, but certainly not straight after their name and date of birth, and before any information about who they are or why they are famous). Proteus (Talk) 23:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Proteus (Talk) 00:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No one's stopping you adding that information — it merely doesn't go at the very beginning. Proteus (Talk) 00:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

RfA Nomination

I'm glad you accepted, now though, you have to follow the instructions at the bottom of this page to get others to vote for you. Good Luck!--Azathar 03:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Watson quote

In general, I'm not fond of using quotes by the persons themselves in their own article, until it's something of extreme importance (i.e. someone's opinions on the murders that they committed or maybe some famous quote that's been immortalized in history). I think just about any quote can be rewritten into a sentence. So, is there really a good reason for using the Watson quote? I mean, sure, I guess it tells us that she really likes being an "old Dragon", but why is this important to her life and career? It really seems to be a minute detail of her history. It's not even really something currently important (i.e. "I will never regret being in the Potter films" or "I am a devout Catholic"). It's something that may be relevant to the Dragon School article, in terms of its members reactions to their attendance there, but not really to Watson herself. At best, I think we should reword it to a non-quote, i.e. "Watson attended the Dragon school, a fact she is proud of" or something. Vulturell 04:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, isn't there a program like "Wikiquotes" that we can put all that into? I've seen it around [1]. I think we should add a Wikiquotes thing and put it in for Watson. Vulturell 04:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll create a Watson quotes page and arrange all that. As for the other things - well, do we really need to spend a huge paragraph explaining an internet mistake? There's at least a sentence there on the IMDB's suffix practices; I just feel uncomfortable with it, it's too self-referential when it comes to the Internet. The Austen thing isn't necessarily irrelevant, it's just that we spend a bit of time talking about who finished writing the book, etc. I think we should just link to the appropriate Wiki page. Regardless, I'll try and adjust these but also keep the information if you think it's important. Vulturell 04:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I really think that the suffix thing should be left out. Sentences like "there may be a connection" feel like Original Research. I put in a warning to editors not to add a suffix, but beyond that I think we could be "constructing" too much of a "story" to the suffix business. OK, I can see what you mean with the Austen thing. I'll add a "Private Life" section and move some of this there. Vulturell 04:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the concession. I am aware that there are other trivia sections out there, but I have seen many removed/altered/inserted into the articles by editors, and I have been doing so myself lately. I really think the Trivia format - i.e. point form - is unencyclopedic and unprofessional and recalls the IMDB. In fact, "Private Life" is kind of a cover-name for the Trivia thing. Do you have a better name for it? I also put in the info about her sports intrests, considering they aren't really "Early Life". Vulturell 04:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, submitted before seeing your second reply. Vulturell 04:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Good job on the adjustments. This kind of thing is long overdue for all articles with Trivia and Quotes. Vulturell 05:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Batxx (talk)

Thanks for notifying me. I saw him adding his/her links to the Mariah Carey article, but didn't notice it on the Lindsay Lohan article. If he/she inserts another link, warn him with {{spam3}}. If he persists after that, list him at WP:AIV and then drop {{spam4}} on his talk page after he's been blocked. Extraordinary Machine 00:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Dakota Fanning protected

I have protected Dakota Fanning for the time being, and will maintain it in that status for a few hours. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your RfA

I'm sorry, but your request for adminship did not pass. As such, I have removed it. Regards, Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 21:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry Man, I was hoping for you. Next time for sure! --Azathar 05:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Gof hermione.jpg

Sorry, another Emma Watson image one! ;)

I've tagged this as no source - you uploaded it and tagged it as a promo shot, but from where and and where can the terms be checked? Thanks/wangi 23:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:Lindsay Lohan

There is no reason why we should not be able to display Lohan's two studio albums in the article. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No, wait, I didn't make myself clear enough — I apologize. Not in the article, but in the lead. I feel as though I am beginning to make enemies on Wikipedia; was that regard to my RfA a compliment or an insult? Also, I was wondering if you wanted to help me edit the Lindsay Lohan article to substantial quality? —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the response. You kind of ignored my one question though: do you want to help me improve the Lindsay Lohan article until it reaches substantial quality? —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Okay, then not substantial quality. Let's say... more or so... FA quality? ;) —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think my take on the "Music" section is a bit more substantial and relevant; more minor details such as "Rumors" reaching number one on TRL or being nominated for an award belong on either the specific single or album's page. Also, numbers should be written out as "number four," opposed to "#4" if I am not mistaken... Triggy 03:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

RadioKirk, thanks for the comments on my page. My reversion was mistaken and I agree with you that the citation appears reasonable. I have my doubts about Fox News, not being a resident in the U.S., but it appears good enough for sales figures at least.  ;-) --Yamla 17:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

sorry, i read this... "Lindsay Lohan is about to be a very busy girl. The singer/actress released her sophomore album, 'A Little More Personal', last December and has released the disc's second single, 'I Live For The Day'. However, Lohan's label is not thrilled with sales and it has fallen to #88 on the charts in just five weeks. Her debut album, 'Speak', was still in the top 30 at this time. So in a bid to boost sales, Casablanca Records has cancelled the release of the single and video for, 'I Live For The Day'. Instead the track, 'Fastlane', will be the new second single and will also serve as the theme song to Lohan's upcoming film, 'Just My Luck'. A video will be shot the first week in February." -MTV (The previous unsigned comment was left by Calebkane talk)

Re: Karen Dotrice

Ok - if you want to change the Karen Dotrice article to say that she is English, I won't revert it. :-) --Marknew 15:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Vaughn Meader

Just wanted to let you know that I think you did a great job cleaning up the article I wrote, which now, in comparison, was clearly a first draft. :-) Thanks. Elf | Talk 05:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! :) RadioKirk talk to me 05:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Edit by Lil_Flip246

I don't think that you were presumptuous at all. Extraordinary Machine 18:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Edits by tvaughn05

Thank you for removing most of my edits on Emma Watson. I was not sure which ones would be repetative, and which ones would not be.

lindsay lohan

Bah, I've been reading too much gossip. Sorry, I really wasn't thinking. I'm going to refrain from editing the article from now on. My mistake, won't happen again. :) Gflores ^Talk 04:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't see that you need to refrain from editing; POV doesn't always hit us immediately, and I've been guilty of it, as well. I do try, though, to read carefully over my edits from all possible sides, especially from the standpoint of what (or who) influences what. So do you. We all get in a hurry, or something similar :) RadioKirk talk to me 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Emma Watson

Thats fine, if you noticed, my edits were only correcting some word spacing errors, I didnt add the paragraph (I thought it looked a little fancrufty to me). I am not familiar with the article and thus was not aware of whether or not the paragraph was an accepted part of the article. I only tidied it. Cheers Banes 15:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I did notice, in fact; I probably should have typed something to the effect that your edits disappeared as part of the purge. When editing an article, if you see something that is clearly POV, conjecture, unencyclopedic and/or unsourced (to name a few), don't be afraid to purge it. :) RadioKirk talk to me 15:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Not "bold" enough is my problem :) Banes 15:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Radcliffe

I'm somewhat confused as to why you deleted the two sites I restored to Daniel Radcliffes page. You're correct in that neither is an official site, however neither was described as such. As there is no official site at this time, these two sites offer more resources for people interested in Daniel Radcliffe, including items of interest to them, but not appropiate for an encyclopedia entry. They are certainly of higher quality than the links that have been left (aside from the IMDB entry), without them further reading consists of a single interview and a bunch of pictures. I think they do add value as an external resource, and I'd like to add them back to the article. exolon 23:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't exactly disagree, as you'll see on the discussion page; however, others who maintain the page say no, so I've been following their lead. To be honest, I'd write them. RadioKirk talk to me 23:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I must be missing something - I did look at the discussion page - one editor objected to the links and removed them, you put them back in in lieu of an actual official site (much as I did) and someone else removed the 'Whois' info. Can't see any other objections on the article discussion page, nor on your or the other editors talk page. I'm going to leave a note on the article talk page asking for opinions on restoring the links and leave it for 24 hours - if noone has objected, I'll add them then and see what the response is. Do you have any thoughts on this? exolon 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan

Should this website just say a person like Muhammad Ali is Black and Irish because the distinction of him being more black is unnecessary and unencyclopedic? 68.77.139.51 18:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me you're joking. If, for example, a person is born in Ireland to black parents, is he more black, or more Irish? That would be ludicrous. In Miss Lohan's case, first of all, there is no reliable source I've ever found (I've been a fan for years and have done a great deal of research) that says she's "more" of one and "less" of another; further—and more importantly—I argue once again that the distinction is triviality at its worst—unless, for example, a person is specifically noted for his/her nationality, as is often done with sports stars, it's simply irrelevant. That she's part-Irish and part-Italian barely qualifies, and then only because it's oft mentioned in biographies. RadioKirk talk to me 18:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Karen Dotrice

Uh... wow. This doesn't mesh at all with other featured articles I've read (and, "went to became"?!). What did I miss? RadioKirk talk to me 21:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about my recent edits to the article? Do you think they are inappropriate? I corrected the "went to became" mistake. JoaoRicardo^talk 22:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No, not inappropriate; I was surprised by the wholesale edits. My apologies, and my thanks for your attention :) RadioKirk talk to me 22:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope I now have incorporated the best of both our ideas. Feel free to comment :) RadioKirk talk to me 23:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! I like the changes. ;-) I still think the article is a bit short, but it looks like there is not much more to be said. Have you watched the DVDs for her films? Maybe there are commentaries or making-of documentaries which can give more information. JoaoRicardo^talk 02:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The Poppins DVD, yes; the others I don't have. This appears to be the best we can do, for now. Thank you for your help! :D RadioKirk talk to me 03:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to your request, I don't see anything wrong with the article, but I might add two caveats:

1. I'm not an FAC rat.
2. I hadn't heard of Ms. Dotrice until 15 minutes ago.

That having been said, perhaps the article would benefit from an infobox similar to the one used at Zach Braff. See Template talk:Infobox Celebrity for details. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:15, Jan. 16, 2006

Greetings! Thanks for fine tuning Karen Dotrice's entry. I appreciate the distinction between the books & film...the thought flitted across my mind as I edited the other (film) links but it immediately evaporated. Cheers, Her Pegship 22:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I don't know enough about her to help with what is missing, sorry... Hope you can find material. Think the article is quite good, just fails 2(b). Mikkerpikker ... 23:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Re Lindsay Lohan

I know very little about Lindsay Lohan. I merely caught the user's edit and fixed the formatting of the table, and have no personal opinion in the listing or non-listing of that film. Perusing IMDb now, though, I agree that it appears to be a project that didn't materialize ("pre-production, 2005"). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 00:32, Jan. 13, 2006

Welcome

You're welcome, it is a great article. Banes 06:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox templates

Hi RadioKirk, I was just about to inform you of my edit, but you got to me first. Keep up the good work. :-) Shawnc 18:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The Feature Article status is great to hear. I only hope we get more editors like you on this project! Shawnc 18:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to say thanks for a job well done. You've spent a great deal of time making the article a FA and it shows. Good job! Gflores ^Talk 19:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Peer review template

It appears that many featured articles also feature in Category:Old requests for peer review, which indicates that most people haven't removed the archived peer review template from the article's talk page even after it had achieved Featured Article status. However, I can't really comment as to whether the box should be removed; I'd suggest posting a message on either the peer review talk page or at the village pump if you want opinions from more experienced editors than myself! :-D --Marknew 16:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

I just wanted to complement you for your Featured Article. Nice work! Deckiller 22:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm always in the market for compliments. ;) Seriously, writing an article and getting it to FA status in five weeks took a lot of work, and I had a lot of help (with appropriate credit). Thanks again! RadioKirk talk to me 22:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Year in X

Well, when these are piped they are "easter egg links", links you have hover over to see where they actually lead, and I find that very unhandy. Also, when they're used in a full date (as they are in the Lohan article) the date formating preferences won't work. It is very common to put these in parenthesis (as in "In 2004 (see 2004 in music), Lohan released [...]") although I find that usually there isn't much relevant information on the "year in x" articles anyway, and personally just don't link them at all. --Fritz S. (Talk) 23:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan

I have a bunch of small concerns about the Lindsay Lohan article. Where would be the best place to list them? the FAC page, Peer Review page, article talk page, or here on your talk page? --maclean25 06:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• I do not make these changes myself because I believe this a good time to learn for future FAC editing. My concerns include:
  • "While still working as a successful actress..." why is the word "successful" there? it is a peacock term. Actually, I personally do not think that entire sentence is poorly crafted. Understand the purpose of the sentence is to indicate that she made a transition from film to music while she was a popular actress. Try saying that in a more matter-of-fact way, like after releasing movie x and x months of premotions she began working on a pop album in Month 200x. She released the album, Speak, in 2004 and after a period of promotions/concerts/projects she began working on her second pop album, Album x, which was released in 2005.
  • Continue working on those headings, like "Breaking in" and "The media spotlight", see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings).
  • Back up (or elaborate) the statement: "...involved in charity projects such as The Carol M. Baldwin Breast Cancer Foundation, Save the Children, The United Cerebral Palsy Association, and her own charity organization, Dream Come True." - this is an important point to make but the use of the word "involved" is so ambiguous that it renders the entire sentence meaningless.
  • "financially comfortable from the start;" what does the start refer to?
  • "rollingstone.com. Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen. URL accessed on 19 August 2004." - the url does not show the article. Please re-format the reference as a proper magazine article reference, not a web reference.
  • "Dina's attorney said she "and the children..." is a misplaced modifier (I think). It reads like the "she" is referring to the attorney, when it is actually supposed to be referring to the mother.
  • "he was sent back to prison for unlicensed driving and attempted assault" - please be more matter-of-fact, just say something along the lines of he was convicted of x and x. I believe the source says something about being intoxicated.
  • "give up if she didn't get the job. and many..." - do not use contractions in articles.
  • "...taking 'shy violet' lessons..." (nytimes.com) why is there quote marks around shy violet? they do not appear in the source. If you want to add emphasis, then say "emphasis added" at the end of the quotation.
  • "Lohan was so well known that her friend" - more peacock terms. Do not tell the reader this, let the reader come to the conclusion that she is so well known. Just say Lohan appeared on the show, etc.
• Most of these are small concerns, not "FA object" worthy, but just a fair warning I do believe the "involved in charity" and the parts that are fan-boy style of writing object worthy. --maclean25 22:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• I see that the Lindsay Lohan got featured. I did not re-review it because I did not expect the FAC to be closed so soon. For the record I will remove the "Object" and bring up further concerns here:
  • "financially comfortable from the start;" this is ambiguous, please be more specific, "start" of what? start of Lindsay's life?
  • I'm still uncomfortable with the "time and money to charity projects". This really should be referenced. It is just too ambiguous and should not be emulated in other articles. money? what $100 or $10,000? time? what one afternoon or every afternoon for 3 months? I hope you can see how this can be manipulated.
  • With respect to the acting sections: there are five quotes from critics describing how good Lohan is and only one negative. There is also one neutral quote, let's go with more of the neutral ones that describe her abilities.
  • Reference the Vanity Fair article ("Vanity Fair released an interview in which Lohan admitted using drugs "a little"" + image of cover is used). --maclean25 00:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Response on maclean25's talk page.

Fair use rationales for non-free images

Sorry for not replying to you about this sooner. In regards to the images on Karen Dotrice (which is now an FA - congratulations), you asked: "As for fair-use rationale, what do I need to add that's not already there?" Well, what you read on the image copyright tag templates is (from what I can gather) essentially the "bare bones" for a claim of fair use on Wikipedia itself; different, more comprehensive claims for fair use have to be provided for each article that the image is used on. It's important that there aren't too many non-free images used on an article, especially if they happen to represent essentially the same thing. Take, for example, the inclusion of Image:OSD.jpg on Mariah Carey. I think there's a more than adequate fair use claim presented on its description page, but supposing Image:ABMB3.jpg were to be added to the article as well? It wouldn't really represent anything that wasn't implied by the first image. And sometimes you have to be even more specific: Image:KaDee Strickland in The Grudge.jpg was added to KaDee Strickland because it is directly related to a quote from Strickland herself in the article. In a nutshell, providing detailed rationales of fair use ensures that Wikipedia keeps well abreast of the grey area involving what constitutes "fair use" according to U.S. copyright law. If this hasn't cleared it up for you, see Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Extraordinary Machine 19:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I voted object at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lindsay Lohan, but please do not take this as an insult towards the Lohan article or your contributions to it. In fact, I have had the page on my watchlist for several months, so I'm aware of the effort that has been put into it (a lot of it by you). I just didn't think that it was ready for FAC yet. On the other hand, I think it's nice that Wikipedia has such a solid article about a contemporary celebrity, and I have added it to the Wikipedia:Good articles list. Above all, don't worry if the nomination fails or if you didn't get to deal with everybody's objections. You'll always get another shot, and what you learnt from the nomination can be used to help improve the article. Extraordinary Machine 20:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; you may have seen my tongue-in-cheek response. I'm actually working on some of your suggestions as I type this. RadioKirk talk to me 21:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Emma Watson

I was wondering why your comment didn't have a question in it... :-) Are you saying that people often change that information to an incorrect version? You could post a similar message at the top, but don't use section headers (==Title==) so that it will appear above the TOC. However, in this case, I don't think that this is a huge problem at this point, especially with the hidden comments you've added into the article already. Alternatively, you could also use {{talkheader}}, although I don't feel that that is essential at this point. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, I logged off before your message. Jim16 has no contributions since your warning, so I'm not going to do anything at this point, but if he persists, feel free to ask me if I'm around, or you can try WP:AIV. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Scully pub.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Scully pub.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Longhair 23:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. RadioKirk talk to me 00:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

David Saks

Hello Mr.Kirk, I read your comments about Mr.Saks. I just surfed in and thought you might like to know that verification has been provided on the David Saks discussion page. I've heard of him and his skill as a pianist is phenomenal. Best wishes, Wikipedia User

Yes, I did notice that, and, thank you. However, it is generally in keeping with Wikpedia policy that the article itself footnote for reference the various sources for the information it presents. May I humbly present one of my two Featured articles—Karen Dotrice—as an example of how facts are properly footnoted? It took a great deal of work as required by admins and my peers to do this correctly. As I've mentioned to the article's author, it is incumbent upon an encyclopedia to make its references clearly visible for those who wish to review and/or read them; it is not the job of the reader to go searching for verification. Thanks again. :) RadioKirk talk to me 03:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hello Mr.Kirk,
• Just a note in passing. As you mention that it "is not the job of the reader to go searching for verification", and could be considered non-sequitor, in your reply to Reneec, nothing could be more laughable or non-sequitor, as you say, than to allow the editing of the content of any article without some attempt to verify the content by the one performing the edit. Much of the editing by users Jersyko, Vary, and the dentist did not rely on sound verification, but an almost laughable degree of vindictiveness. In the case of Mr.Saks, the readers are also the editors, and they also have the responsibility at hand to rend a faithful account of their material to the reader who may not be an editor, as this may be the case for any article that is prepared in Wikipedia. In the case of the latter, a reader who is not an editor, I agree with you if that was your intended argument. Mr.Saks' page should be restored. (66.239.212.131 03:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC))

First, let me mention that I had nothing to do with this article's deletion, nor with any of its edits; I merely was attempting to mediate a decided lack of discussion thereon. Further, I saw no "vindictiveness" on either side; there was, however, an attitude of "I said it, so you'll accept it" among some of the editors demanding that their uncited information be allowed to remain. Yes, it is true that readers who also are editors should be encouraged to follow through on source material (the same holds for non-editors, for that matter); it should not under any circumstances be something they should be forced to do (this is akin to saying, "you're an editor, you do the work for me"). Any published work relying on something that can only be considered sloppy research—apologies, but that's a fact—would become laughing stock even before it hit print; an online encyclopedia must be treated the same way, for the same reasons, or it denigrates into useless fancruft. Finally, I would have to assume that, if someone started the article over with verifiable, cited sources and written from a neutral point of view—and, of course, if Mr. Saks is sufficiently notable for a page (not my judgment, as I'd never heard of him before this)—the article most likely would stay. RadioKirk talk to me 04:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your reply. As the matter of vindicativeness, let me point to user Vary's citing of the Commercial Appeal as a "small paper", a paper with over 1.2 million daily circulation. Perhaps "vindictivecruft" would apply without assuming a pejorative posture. Again, as I have said to others in this debate, look at the total collective history of this matter over the last two weeks and find much content within Mr.Saks' article to have been verified beyond the question of a doubt. Meek's deletion was hasty and without merit. An attempt to correct the article to it's verifiable content was not undertaken by any of the compulsive editors who had the capability to perform such a task, which is highly indicative of their postion to rather allow the original author to undertake that responsibility due to their compulsive deletion and kibitzing. There is wickedly profound anarchic smugness amidst that which is verifiable in the matter of the notable Mr.Saks. The ambiguities are reprehensible, the circumlocution in the matter annoying. Should we prepare ourselves for lines of reasoning that might perhaps appeal a "neutered point of view" denigrating gender specificity ?
• Friedrich Nietzsche: "Perhaps no one has ever been sufficiently truthful about what "truthfullness" is". Best wishes, Mr.Kirk(66.239.212.27 17:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC))

With apologies in advance should this patronize, the only statement in your response that's on point is, "[a]n attempt to correct the article to it's [sic] verifiable content was not undertaken by any of the compulsive editors who had the capability to perform such a task, which is highly indicative of their postion to rather allow the original author to undertake that responsibility due to their compulsive deletion and kibitzing." This continues to argue with my assertion that "it should not under any circumstances be something they should be forced to do (this is akin to saying, "you're an editor, you do the work for me"). Any published work relying on something that can only be considered sloppy research—apologies, but that's a fact—would become laughing stock even before it hit print; an online encyclopedia must be treated the same way, for the same reasons, or it denigrates into useless fancruft." The recent removal of the article suggests several admins agree with this; to borrow your own words, it is the job of "the original author to undertake that responsibility". Indeed, unless you can agree that any editor is subject to the same policy of citation as any other editor, I don't see a purpose in continuing this discussion, as my opinion matches policy and I don't foresee a change. I appreciate the discourse. RadioKirk talk to me 21:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Mr.Kirk, thank you for your response. Once again, the point is that creative elimination of material could, indeed, promulgate the intent to justify the verification rending the status of authority prevalent. This deletion, in the face of sound verification, is malevolent. Could it be, additionally, that notoriety is a purely subjective element, perhaps at times demographic, other times universal ? The statistical characterization of the human population broken down by age, sex or income is not the issue in the matter of notoriety in this case, although one editor has commented that he has "spoken to everyone I know", and none of the "everyone I know" knew of Mr.Saks, which happened to be, in his mind, a rational reason for deletion. Could the "everyone" have been confined to his barber, sister, dorm roommate and lab professor ? Some have never heard of George Gershwin. He may appear notable to some, obscure and unknown to others. The invocation of nota bene is not at hand. Recognition is not forced. The matter could just as easily be disregarded or dismissed; brushed off. The criterion for notability is slanted, one-sided, colored. Must we count the number of hands raised high enough to be counted insuring the substantiation, the ratification, the verification of merit? The "...everyone I know" is demonstrably demographic based on his peer group,i.e, 20 to 25 years of age. Many of Mr.Saks' accomplishment occurred in the early 70's through the early 1990's, presuming the editor was 6 to 8 years of age. Mr.Meek, the editor and admin who removed the article, wasn't born yet. Only one admin, unless I have not recognized the position of the other editors as such, removed the article per the delete vote among three seasoned, principal players in this matter, all under thirty. So much of the remaining article was proven verifiable that I could believe that if Wikipedia were the subject of fiscal endeavor that avarice would follow as a result, rather than attempt to ameliorate by the provisions of substantiation. This is not a case of actus reus, a moral or civil law has not been transgressed. Perhaps I'm hearing a different drummer, Mr.Kirk ? Your thoughts are appreciated, no apology necessary, no patronization seen. Only courteous, friendly response. I appreciate your effort to fill in the gaps. Perhaps you might find the time to look into the life of David Saks and correct the "sloppy research", as you did in your fine work on Karen Dotrice. With your help the presentation might not end up the butt, goat or stooge of the reader.Best thoughts,(66.239.212.70 03:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC))

I'm going to reply here, as your IP changes with each logon. First, while I speak attorney, I find your application hereinabove overly abundant ;) Seriously, two points require reply: First, where you see malevolence, I see opinion, reached entirely without malice. That opinion may or may not have been correct, and I will not judge; I must wonder, though, if it's possible that your assertion of malevolence is based merely on that it disagrees with your opinion. Second—and, again—my work on Karen Dotrice and Lindsay Lohan, to name the Featured Articles in which I've had a hand, was by my choice; these were articles I wanted to improve, among others. To feel forced to improve something is non sequitur to an encyclopedia. I understand where you're coming from; many articles on Wikipedia are substandard, based on their maintenance (or lack thereof). Your apparent argument—that you should be allowed to present substandard work simply because there are others who can improve it—is valid only if the opposite—that other editors should be allowed to delete that which they deem substandard, without malevolence—is valid as well. There is an arbitration process for those actions that are malevolent, but I would not envision it winning in this case. RadioKirk talk to me 04:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• The motivation of the abrogators appeared vaguely precursury, premonitory in the face of their disputed points of view which, believed to be definitive, authoratative, unequivocal and univocal among a portentous few, appears to have robbed them of their coveted dignity. I never said that one should not be allowed to delete that which they consider substandard. Hasty elimination appears to be a standard model or pattern regarded as typical in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is steeped in a superfluity of Romper Room Hitlers. Hence, the reason why many colleges and universities refuse to subscribe to it's contents with credibility.
• As per my IP#, the router appears to modify only in the last string. The identifier indicating the local network address never changes unless I change my location from the default gateway. Don't let it pluck your feathers !(66.239.212.58 15:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC))

Nothing plucked; merely easier ;) To be fair, however, one could cite my argument as the reason that, as you put it, "many colleges and universities refuse to subscribe to [its] contents". It appears we will continue to disagree on motive, because I do not see what you assert. This has been a pleasant discourse, but I believe it's reached its conclusion. Happy editing! :) RadioKirk talk to me 15:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your extraordinary consideration, time and patience. It has been a pleasure visiting in your forum. I hope to spend many happy hours perusing your work, as that of the others in Wikipedia, in the days to come.

My best wishes to you Mr.Kirk. I hope you'll take the time to visit Mr.Saks' colorful pages and get to know him. He's remarkable, funny and very good humored, in view of his tragic partial loss of vision, retinal detachment and hemorrhages. He works for a real estate company. He's kind of a Charles Ives to those who know him. Ives was an American composer who sold insurance. Many good thoughts for you...(66.239.212.34 18:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC))

Best back! RadioKirk talk to me 21:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan name note

I should point out that there is no one standard to obey regarding including the birth name of a subject with their date of birth, and usually it's for a those who have changed their last name. A middle name is rather insignificant. I'd suggest reconsidering it for her, rather than having all information on her birth name scattered throughout the article. See also Talk:Lindsay Lohan#Middle name. --Fallout boy 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you'll allow me, that's not a significant reason to change it (and the information is not "scattered throughout the article"—there's one mention of the pronunciation of "Lohan", and that's it). Personally, I don't feel there is a difference whether it's first, middle, last or all of the above that has changed since birth. Of course, that's my opinion... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 03:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned this on the Lindsay Lohan talk page as well, I have looked through your precedent articles, and I've also left a note on Strickland's talk page about the formatting her name as well. --Fallout boy 03:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw that, thanks. If I may again reiterate, I think it is a valid matter of personal preference (as opposed to a style guideline, for example) but not a valid reason to change something (unless, of course, style guidelines mandate it). :) RadioKirk talk to me 03:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Upon further review, I've changed it; details on her talk page. RadioKirk talk to me 13:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Your user page

Just wanted to recommend tweaking your table width parameters from 800px > 98% and 512px > 100%. This allows it to fix nicely in different resolutions. Keep up the good work! - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) RadioKirk talk to me 17:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Jim16

Hi. I've removed you 3RR report of Jim16, since it wasn't. Secondly, your repeated reversion of his talk page looks dangerously like harassment. The history is there, if anyone wants to check it, and since its blank, they will. People have special priviledges on their talk pages.

I mean... what is this about? Even if he is blocked he still gets to edit his talk page. What exactly were you threatening him with?

And why the stuff about repeated blocks, when he has never been blocked [2]?

Yours puzzled, William M. Connolley 20:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It was my understanding from discussions with other editors that blanking one's talk page—especially if one does so to avoid answering to accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry—is a violation of policy. The note about blocking was an error that I failed to catch. If indeed my understanding of policy is incorrect, I will withdraw all current and future objections. RadioKirk talk to me 21:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

HARASSMENT

YOU SEE? WHAT YOU WERE DOING TO ME WAS HARASSMENT! Jim16 05:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not not now nor will I ever consider any statement from a proven vandal to be relevant to anything Wikipedia has to offer, or to anything I have to offer Wikipedia. Go play with your Xbox and leave actual enclyclopedia writing to actual writers, child. RadioKirk talk to me 06:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Harassment (again)

Please stop harassing me. Jim16 04:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL sorry, you plan to get over yourself when, exactly? RadioKirk talk to me 04:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

PISS OFF

PISS OFF! Jim16 19:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, children... gotta love 'em for their entertainment value... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 19:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Add: Renounce your vandalism and become a constructive editor, or leave. Any other choice, and you have a surprise coming... RadioKirk talk to me 19:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

User talk page blanking

I saw the discussion on Jim on WP:AN/3RR, and wanted to point a few things out: 1) Users can edit their user talk page while blocked. Therefore, blocking would not do much. 2) If he's removing the messages, he must have seen them. 3) I'm sure you noticed it doesn't take much to find the removed content. 4) The 3RR rule is an electric fence, and not an entitlement. If I handled this, and it was an edit war on an article, I would have blocked both users. I believe it says somewhere in there that all parties should be treated equally...in most circumstances. 5) When users act like that, they don't tend to stay around for very long, due to an eventual indefinite block. In other words, don't worry about it. :) --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 21:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for writing. You may have seen my response above to William M. Connolley. So, I guess I'll not worry about it ;) RadioKirk talk to me 21:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Jim16

As you may have noticed, I blocked him for the "PISS OFF" remark above. — Mar. 12, '06 [19:12] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Thank you! May I suggest keeping an eye on contribs from 66.17.116.148 as well? :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Checkuser, you'll have to post it at WP:RFCU, or contact one of these ten people directly. — Mar. 12, '06 [19:25] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Got it, thank you :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan

Whatever, I don't care about Lindsay Lohan anyway, I was just trying to help her article. (Clouded 21:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC))

Concerning William Shatner

Sorry about the edit. I was listening to the (editted) audio while reading the article, and noticed it didn't have the Priceline bit. I thought it was some sneaky vandelism. Terribly sorry... T ConX 01:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

'salright. The edited audio file was also the first I had heard of the appearance, and I went searching for other versions when I noticed the missing music. That was when I put in the full quote. I've added a note to the talk page since I neglected to note the source for the full bit (my bad!). Thanks for writing back! RadioKirk talk to me 02:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Emma Watson Picture

I don't mind, go ahead and delete it. Sorry, I wasn't really paying attention when I uploaded it. I just really didn't like the fact that they were using a poster because its not that great to view Hermione and Emma Watson as the same person. Cho Chang 04:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I tend to agree with you from a visual standpoint. Unfortunately, there's very little of Emma that's fair use, and WP has to be very careful with copyright issues, or this whole thing could conceivably come to a screeching halt until they're fixed. RadioKirk talk to me 04:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there might be publicity photos out there. I'll just have to look Cho Chang 15:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool, happy hunting! May I offer: As I, too, have recently had to make sure photographs I've uploaded are properly tagged, Image:ALMP_pub.jpg is a decent example of how to word a fair-use rationale for WP. Naturally, the exact phrasing will depend on the image and the subject. RadioKirk talk to me 04:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Johnny Carson

Because people are supposed to be sorted by year of death, like Category:2005 death rather than just being dead. Read the intro section in the Category:Dead people cat and you will see. -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 21:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it just hit me—there would be no subcategory for those still living, would there? ;) RadioKirk talk to me 22:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, as the Category:Living people cat is only for Wikipedia uses. For more info, read the intro in that cat. CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 22:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Fair-use question

As far as I know, I think that use of the poster can qualify as fair use if it is of lower resolution than the original image, as well as if there are other good reasons for using that image on Emma Watson. Warner Bros. probably might appreciate one of their promotional images receiving extra circulation anyway. On an unrelated note, I think my standards at the Lindsay Lohan FAC were a little too high, so sorry about that :). Maybe it's because I adored Freaky Friday and Mean Girls? Well anyway, if you need any help with anything (or would like to collaborate on an article) then please let me know! Extraordinary Machine 18:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"The image features the subject in her best known acting role, yet is simultaneously illustrative of the subject in real life" - sweetness :). Sorry, but I just feel that sentence hit the nail on the head with a hammer factory! The rationale looks great to me; however, user:Carnildo is much more knowledgeable about image copyrights and fair use than I am. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use. Extraordinary Machine 21:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest not using it, since doing so does compete directly with commercial use of it. As far as I can tell, the book it's from is a collection of images and information on the actors, which is also a pretty good description of our encyclopedia articles. Try finding something with no commercial value, such as a press kit publicity image. Other options would be a movie screenshot (small part of a commercial work) or a movie poster (promotional image for a commercial work) --Carnildo 05:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, help me so I follow this, especially for future reference: How does using the image compete with its commercial use? I wonder because this is a low-res copy and, if anything, it would seem to promote sales of the poster book before it would hinder them. (BTW, a poster and a screenshot are the current images on Emma Watson.) RadioKirk talk to me 05:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Also, it occurs to me, the poster book may no longer be on store shelves as the film is no longer in first-run release—in fact, the video/DVD release is next month. RadioKirk talk to me 05:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it could possibly affect sales in that someone wanting an image of Watson or this particular image, could download it from here rather than buy the book. I don't think it's very likely to happen, but I think that's what could be argued even if the book is no longer for sale. I think you could make a good fair use claim for it, but even so I don't think it's the best option. I agree with Carnildo that a screenshot would be a better option. As Watson does not always look "in character" as Hermione, a well chosen screenshot image would serve to illustrate her both as "herself" and as the character. Rossrs 20:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, would it be even less "likely to happen" if I uploaded an even smaller-res version of the image, or would you still suggest a screenshot? Thanks again for your attention. RadioKirk talk to me 20:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Resolution is something of a red herring when it comes to fair use. For album covers, it matters: a 300x300 scan of a cover simply cannot look good when printed out, so we're protected against accusations that we're contributing to music piracy by providing a gallery of album covers. For something like pornography, even a 100x100 thumbnail could be a copyvio, since the image could function as a replacement for the original. I think the image in question tends towards the "pornography" end of the spectrum: as long as the image is high-resolution enough to be useful for us, it's high-resolution enough to infringe copyright. --Carnildo 22:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. RadioKirk talk to me 22:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the publicity photo would be one to use if there were no suitable alternatives, but because there are suitable alternatives - (press kit publicity photo/movie poster image/screenshot) - using one of them would be preferable. I suggested the screenshot because the copyright is easier to determine than a publicity photo, which, depending upon the website from which it was obtained, can be very ambiguous. Also, with the screenshot, you have a little bit more choice as to what image is most suitable - I was thinking that it would be easy enough to find something that's more-or-less comparable with the image under discussion. Rossrs 10:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Dotrice

Well (and quickly) spotted, web reference templates are more of a problem for me now that references appear in the middle of articles as well as at the end. Rich Farmbrough. 00:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Incidentally, see my question on Talk:Matthew Garber. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough. 00:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Lohan

I won't revert back to my version for now, but what parts did you find inappropriate? Most of my edits just tightened up various grammatical edits and the like. JackO'Lantern 01:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Does the older Wikitable version include the brown shading on the titles? (by titles I mean date, other notes, etc.). I really like the brown shading, it adds contrast. JackO'Lantern 01:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Message on your talk page—mostly, the problems lie in wikidates removed and wikitables updates during WP:FA, and Mean Girls was the critical breakout, as referenced. The shading is a matter of preference, I suppose, but it also removed a rowspan. Work in progress... RadioKirk talk to me 01:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and as for her "breakout role". Freaky Friday was a big starring role and grosses over $100m, which almost no one expected it to. By the time Confessions and Mean Girls were released, Lohan was already a "household name" among teenage audiences (believe me, I am one) and was known for her films and for the December 2003-era articles on her feud with Duff. Are there a large number of media sources to back up the Mean Girls role being her breakout, or is this up for debate? As for "critically speaking", Freaky Friday received a very Fresh rating on RottenTomatoes, equal to if not higher than Mean Girls. JackO'Lantern 01:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Friday, while a critical and commercial success, was never termed a "breakout" in any review I ever saw (certainly not contemporaneously), mostly because Jamie Lee Curtis was the headliner, not Lohan. Lohan headlined Mean Girls, hence the critical notices of "breakout role". I suppose it certainly could be debated, but I would not call Friday "breakout" for a second-bill. RadioKirk talk to me 01:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Technically, you can even argue that "Parent Trap" was her breakout. Anyway, is the dark shading on Role-Date-Other Notes-etc. inappropriate or can that be restored to the filmography? JackO'Lantern 01:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

And, more or less, the article does make that argument; I'm adding "as a leading actress" to the lead to make it more correct; as for the shading, if you'd be so kind, let me finish the incorporations I'm making now :) RadioKirk talk to me

Explanations for non-changes will be on your talk page shortly :) RadioKirk talk to me 02:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Red links - I used to agree with you, and I usually removed anything from an article that created a red link. But I've come to realize that the red links are there because the people should have a Wiki entry, but don't. For example, Turan and Maslin are two fairly notable critics. I am going to create just the briefest of entries for them, to justify the links. I have no problem with your choice of words for "adult-oriented", anything similar to mature or mature itself would do. It's just that "independent film" was not accurate because it is not an independent film, and doesn't correctly convey what the essence of her transition was - from children's and teen movies to serious projects (even though I believe "Prairie" is a comedy). I am aware of the process for FA's, but obviously no article is perfect, no matter how well done. Can I change the font on the filmography header to gray, though? JackO'Lantern 03:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Created Maslin and Turan entries. Also, a few mild changes that you didn't seem to mind before. I've posted a fairly awkward-sounding sentence on discussion, I think you can probably explain it to me or change it. JackO'Lantern 03:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, APHC is an independent film, despite the director, the budget, and the cast—"independent" merely means anything not shot and/or financed by a "major" studio. In fact, Picturehouse purchased the distrib rights after the film was shopped for that very reason. Thanks for the stubs on Turan and Maslin. Why would you change the font color on the filmog header? RadioKirk talk to me 04:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I want to change the color in order to create contrast (between the header and the rest). That makes it looks visually better, is all. I guess the meaning of "independent film" has been clouded in recent years. Back in the day, it meant anything done completely outside the studio system and with a meager budget, no stars, etc. but nowadays it can mean a $100m-budget film that was simply done with no studio backing. JackO'Lantern 04:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the font color, I just found it unecessary; anyway, a few more changes I propose:

1. Restoring "Lindsay" to first instance in the picturebox; the first reference should be complete;
2. "...financially comfortable from the start..." It's even more ambiguous without the latter three words, as I discussed with another editor; I'll try to phrase it better;
3. "...led to roles in television soap operas..." "Television" is in the lead sentence of the same paragraph and is repetetive there;
4. "...(played by..." That's why the parentheses are there; "played by" is redundant;
5. "Penny in the film version of Inspector Gadget The link leads to the further explanation, making "the film version of" redundant; and
6. "low-budget" back to "independent" Per previous discussion and the fact that nearly every story done on the film mentions it.

Comments? RadioKirk talk to me 04:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm good with everything, but I think "low-budget" makes a better description. This web site mentions that it cost under $10m to produce [3]. JackO'Lantern 04:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, even when inaccurate, "low-budget" is often used to imply "beneath this person's abilities" and I'm loath to use it... RadioKirk talk to me 04:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Oh, the background, not the font, I get it. Also, I'm removing the quotes around "Alexandra "Alli" Fowler"— I can't find the reference offhand, but the WP:MOS says, somewhere, that characters' names are not in quotes. RadioKirk talk to me 04:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess that could be true. Maybe we should just say "ensemble film" and forget both low-budget and independent, since neither really do it justice? By the way, the South by Southwest Festival in the same section is an ugly red link. Also, do you have any idea how I can change the color of the rows on the filmography from the currently ugly yellow to the bold that used to be there (without changing the header's shade)? JackO'Lantern 04:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw that red link, thanks. Meantime... yellow? Er... check your preferences and see which skin you're using... RadioKirk talk to me 04:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Gof hermione.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Gof hermione.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

I don't see any such listing, even in the archives. RadioKirk talk to me 02:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, is it because it's now an orphan? That was fast... RadioKirk talk to me 06:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

*ahem*

I think this should be on the discussion page, not the user page. Yes, Big Brother is watching you. ;) --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 04:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL thanku :D RadioKirk talk to me 04:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan Punk'd reference

I feel that the Punk'd reference is irrelevant because I do not consider appearances on such shows to be substantive information about the career of an actor/actress. Mentioning that Lindsay Lohan appeared on a TV show where celebrities have pranks pulled on them tells me nothing about Lohan's career or significance as an actress. It instead functions as nothing more than a subtle advertisement for Punk'd, which I believe is bad for the encyclopedia. It is possible that the Punk'd reference is significant in demonstrating her friendship with Kutcher and her later connection to Valderrama, but the re-write does not explain that in a manner that connects the two appearances. Until this is re-written to make the connection clear (which should make it relevant), I'm removing the reference altogether. -- backburner001 06:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have to admit I'm a bit off-put by your insistence that information that survived the PR and FAC processes is irrelevant—"I do not consider" demonstrates this is your own opinion—and therefore must be removed until it suits you, as opposed to discussing the intended move first. To be honest, it's irrelevant how Lohan and Kutcher met and became friends; since Punk'd only targets celebrities, it only matters that Kutcher had determined Lohan's celebrity sufficient to feature her on the show, which is a relevant career milestone as it says, "Lindsay Lohan is officially a celebrity, according to Punk'd. (I still maintain that both her Punk'd appearance and the later cameo on That 70s Show are relevant for no more significant reason than they happened.) Therefore, I have restored—with another minor rewrite—a paragraph that survived the PR and FAC processes. In the future, may I ask that you please discuss concerns on data before purging it? RadioKirk talk to me 14:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you are off-put by my edits is not my problem. I am not aware of any Wikipedia guideline, which grants immunity to articles that have survived the PR and FAC processes. Though these articles might have survived those processes, they still might have the potential for improvement. If I see a problem in an article, regardless of what process it has survived, I will edit it in an attempt to improve it. Furthermore (if I remember correctly from my brief look at the PR and FAC done on this article), the Punk’d reference was only discussed as an example of a broader suggestion – it was never addressed specifically and you made no further comments on it. Correct me on this point, if I missed something.

Yes, this is my opinion. Yes, this reference must be removed until it suits me. My action in this respect is no different from anything you have done throughout this dispute. You think the Punk’d reference is relevant and therefore you will keep adding it because it suits you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. As a result of the nature of this encyclopedia, editors will sometimes disagree on particular edits. Furthermore, if an editor is determined to push his edit forward, the conflict will continue until that editor decides an edit suits him. If you aren’t prepared to deal with this kind of interaction, go start your own version of Wikipedia where you always have the last word. If not, then don’t point fingers at people for doing the very thing that is encouraged here.

I have made attempts at discussing the issues by justifying my edits when they were contested. My edits are no secret as I made it clear on the history page.

I have already expressed that the Punk’d reference is not sufficient because the connection between the show and her later friendships/relationships is not explicit. The mere fact that they happened is not relevant enough to be included because it tells me nothing about her life or her career, aside from the fact that she was on a show that pulls pranks on celebrities. It is my opinion that biographical articles should highlight the important parts of a person’s life – not necessarily every appearance they made, but the ones that were significant to their success and notoriety.

For this reason, I will keep removing this reference until it remains removed or until a connection between Punk’d and Lohan’s later relationships is made explicit. -- backburner001 20:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong answer. You have never attempted to discuss this; never once have you said anything such as, "I think this is irrelevant, let's work together to fix it." Instead, you simply remove the data and justify the move after the fact by saying, essentially, "I don't like it. Fix it, or I'll remove it again." This does not constitute a discussion— it is antagonistic, and my reverts are justified as they restore information that was already there prior to your removal. I am restoring the reference and taking this to WP:RFC/ART. RadioKirk talk to me 20:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with having others comment on the issue. But, let's look at the way you wrote the entry on WP:RFC/ART:

Dispute over whether content can remain until it "satifies" the user who keeps removing it. "Discussion" by User:backburner001 essentially consists of "I don't like it. You fix it. If not, I'll keep removing it."

You aren't even posing the dispute nuetrally, as the second guideline on WP:RFC/ART asks users to do. Who's the one truly being antagonistic? -- backburner001 03:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The posting is neutral; "I don't like it. You fix it. If not, I'll keep removing it" paraphrases with an identical meaning your own words, "Yes, this reference must be removed until it suits me." (The meaning is identical because you apparently cannot say, "Let us fix it.") Even better, let's go straight to your user page, where one of your stated goals is to "[r]emove irrelevant/trivial content." Note that you don't suggest working together with other editors to "improve" content, but that you, alone, intend to remove it, based on your—and only your—criteria therefor. First, I cannot think of a purpose in simply deleting data unless its factuality is under dispute, or it is obviously false, or it clearly has no relevance to the subject (and this case is anything but clear). Should we "improve" data, as you claim? Absolutely. Reject it out of hand? Absolutely not. Second, did you even attempt to learn who the author was? Did you ever post a message on the talk page saying, give or take, "Why is this here? Is it relevant? Can it be removed if it's not?" No, you did not; you took it upon yourself to determine, "this is irrelevant, good-bye," click. Done. This violates the "working together to create an encyclopedia" spirit that is supposed to embody Wikipedia; it is arrogant, egocentric and unproductive. You wonder why I'm off-put? Because "let's fix this together" (seemingly) never even occurred to you. Naturally, I feel my reaction to your actions is perfectly justified—and, I would go so far as to say I've been far more civil than many other editors would have been. RadioKirk talk to me 00:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The posting is not neutral. You chose the parts of my responses that bolstered your image and slanted the description of the conflict in your favor. My description was neutral. It stated that there is a dispute and the nature of that dispute (whether content is relevant or not). Other Wikipedians who wish to comment on the matter have the intelligence to determine the rest when they read the content of our dispute on the Lohan talk page.

Contrary to the image you are attempting to paint, I have never suggested that we should not work together to improve the article. What you fail to see is that sometimes, removing content is part of that collaboration and improvement. I did my part – I removed content I felt was not significant and I made suggestions for improvement when I was asked for them. If you are interested in working together to fix this problem, do your part and improve the Punk’d reference or give me a legitimate reason for keeping the reference that was in there before. The above statements you made provided no good counter-arguments. Instead of focusing on the discussing the reference I removed, you decided to focus on the fact that the edit occurred and took great offense to it.

What you are asking me for is preferential treatment. In effect, though you probably won’t acknowledge this, you are telling me that I need to ask your permission before changing your work on Wikipedia. I’m not going to ask your permission before editing articles here. You have the ability to look at the history page, examine what edits have been made, ask questions about changes to the people who made them, etc. -- backburner001 03:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've tried being nice. What I am demanding is that you abandon the confrontational style of "I'm removing it until I like it and you'll get over it." I will not be bullied. The reference stays. Period. RadioKirk talk to me 04:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Identify exactly where you found the sentence, "I'm removing it until I like it and you'll get over it." --backburner001 04:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You are confrontational. Your idea of "working together" is, paraphrased (got it this time?), "I don't like it. I'm deleting it. You fix it." I have laid out the case for the information's inclusion (it happened, it received massive press, it demonstrates Lohan's celebrity status, etc.); your entire case is, paraphrased (I can keep this up...), "I don't care. I say it's irrelevant. Gone." If I worked with someone IRL whose idea of "working together" matched yours, his butt would be fired. You have forced me to respond in kind, so that's what I'm doing. I intend to stop your attempts to vandalize this article by purging it of demonstrably relevant material if it gets us both repeatedly blocked for WP:3RR and/or banned from Wikipedia. "My soul's prepared. How's yours?" RadioKirk talk to me 04:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I am requesting a Wikipedia:truce. As a condition of this truce, I request that you do not edit the description of this dispute on the WP:RFC/ART. In return, I will not make additional edits to the Lindsay Lohan article until we resolve this dispute. Do you accept these conditions, RadioKirk? -- backburner001 06:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I am, however, placing you on notice: Your professed "I did my part – I removed content ... (you) do your part and improve (it)" style of "working together" is the real-life equivalent of taking a co-worker's report, tossing a random page into the trash, telling them "I did my part, now you do yours and fix it" and then taking credit for "helping" to "improve" it. If you weren't fired, your actions would make you the most despised person in the office; they are antagonistic, confrontational and wrong. This is not about me; it's about equity, and your "work" on Wikipedia as a whole. I intend to keep an eye on your future edits to this and other pages until you've learned what "working together" really means. Yes—it's your turn to satisfy me. RadioKirk talk to me 13:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Good, then we have a truce.

I came to Wikipedia fully expecting that not only you would scrutinize my edits, but that many others would scrutinize them as well. If you are trying to intimidate or scare me by placing me “on notice,” it won’t work. I’m already on notice, as are you, and as is everyone who edits this encyclopedia. It’s the nature of Wikipedia. Stop dramatizing the situation and stick to the discussion of the content being disputed.

What you call confrontational, I call confident. I am willing to work with people. What I am not willing to do is appease them at every turn by giving them preferential treatment.

Now, I would like to add a condition to this truce. From this point forward, both you and I stop discussing peripheral issues – such as who was wrong, who did this and that, etc. Instead, let’s stick to the dispute – namely whether or not a reference to Punk’d is relevant/significant in this article – and resolve it. Do you agree to this condition? -- backburner001 15:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If—and only if—you intend to learn from this experience. You continue to proceed from an egocentric platform—your "confidence" has manufactured from whole cloth my "asking ... for pereferential treatment", which does not and never did exist. Simultaneously, my "dramatizing" is no more or less than your own. From here forward, your first step must be in the spirit of mutual cooperation, not your confidence. Do you agree to this condition? RadioKirk talk to me 16:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole reason why I would like to add this condition is because I would like both of us to learn from this experience. I thought this would be apparent by the very nature of the fact that I initiated a truce to begin with.

I am willing to learn from this experience. Are you willing? If you are, will you let issues about our editing styles sit until we resolve this content issue? -- backburner001 07:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly—and, agreed. RadioKirk talk to me 13:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -- backburner001 19:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Question about Lohan and Ashton Kutcher

Did Ashton Kutcher introduce Lohan to Wilmer Valderrama? -- backburner001 00:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not found a reputable source one way or the other. RadioKirk talk to me 01:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Are there non-reputable sources that allude to the same? If there are, can you direct me to those sources or re-write the Punk'd reference including these non-reputable sources (with a disclaimer of some kind that lets the reader know that the claims made by the non-reputable sources are speculative or questionable)?

I'm trying to reach some kind of compromise here that will satisfy both of us. I'm not willing to let the current Punk'd reference stand on its own, but if it can be put in a context (even a weak context), I'll let it stand as relevant. -- backburner001 19:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I, too, would prefer to reach a compromise; however, I have to mention that my opinion that "it's irrelevant how Lohan and Kutcher met and became friends; since Punk'd only targets celebrities, it only matters that Kutcher had determined Lohan's celebrity sufficient to feature her on the show" ([4]) has not changed. This opinion was echoed by Rossrs ([5]), who absolutely nailed it when he added, "I think the sentence is ok as it is and I don't think it absolutely must be changed, but I also think that any opportunity to improve/strengthen an article should be taken". On the other hand, maclean25 agreed with you ([6]) which, in terms of a discussion only, leaves a 2-2 count. If nothing else, this underscores a lack of consensus, which supports the promiment opinion: it could be better, but it shouldn't be removed. Thus, I believe it's fair to reiterate that, as I continue (and, I do continue) to look for ways to improve the reference, I will restore the data if it's deleted and, because Lindsay Lohan is a Featured article, I will remove any "speculative" additions. Meantime, I just checked again, and I don't currently find any reference to Kutcher introducing Lohan and Valderrama. RadioKirk talk to me 19:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I replied to this on my talk page. -- backburner001 15:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. RadioKirk talk to me 19:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Replied again. -- backburner001 23:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto again. RadioKirk talk to me 23:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

One last comment. -- backburner001 19:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. RadioKirk talk to me 20:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Figured I'd point this out (the first comment on the page) as it pertains to this discussion. Consider it my way of attempting to make ammends for getting off on the wrong foot with you earlier. -- backburner001 21:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have replied. I appreciate the notice. :) RadioKirk talk to me 21:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Rup-Dawg Grint...On the Radio?

Hey man, this is Waldo J. Cartridge, you can call me Woody. You asked me about the reliable source proving Rup-Dawg Grint's radio career. Here it is. [[7]]. Thanks for asking me, I'm glad to help out. I think I might add it to Rup-Dawg's talk page as well.

-Woody

No problem man. I hope you got the whole "Rup-Dawg" thing. I made it up myself, I thought it was funny because it sounded like Snoop Dogg. I know, I'm a loser. But anyway, I see where you're coming from but I find it a little ironic that IMBD is unreliable because you can edit it, and we work for wikipedia. Don't get me wrong, I love both of the sites, but wiki-people get bad raps on political issues. I've heard that people change stuff and say thing like, "senator 'x' was voted the most annoying senator by his peers in congress." I don't want to look like a site-hater, but I thought I might add. Couldn't contain myself really.

Rup-Dawg's the man.

-Woody

That's good stuff man. You tell them. Go wikipedia! IMDB is for losers!

-Woody

Hey, I just realized that the picture next to your name is the Libertarian party logo. That's totally awesome, I'm a Libertarian myself, my roots are from NH where you can find a pretty strong Libertarian movement.-Woody

Experience

You have enough experience to know that making legal threats here is a no no. I agree that it was a personal attack (a form of vandalism) and have placed the appropriate warning on his talk page. But please do not make any more legal threats (although I can understand the desire to with this guy). Keep up the good work!Gator (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently not ;) Seriously, though, thank you :) RadioKirk talk to me 15:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Profile Page

I have found a blog at http://readingfromrhoderick.blogspot.com which has a post regarding the McFly-Radcliffe rumour. Gates posted it on Feb 21. There is also a post in the blog on the Melbourne Socialist Brigade. This, and other Yahoo search results provides enough info in my view to give him a profile page, etc.Merlov 18:19, 2 March 2006 (TUC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "profile page"—if you're referring to the main article page for Daniel Radcliffe, then this blog (if accurate) demonstrates even better why the data is not encyclopedically relevant. To raise a rumor, even if only to shoot it down, lends the rumor credence where none should exist. Perhaps even more relevantly, this was not widely reported; the rumor was picked up and disseminated by a few so-called "entertainment media" sources and that's it. In the case of a Lindsay Lohan, for example, certain rumors were widespread and heavily reported in the mainstream, leading her to deny them in the mainstream—hence their inclusion in her article. This simply didn't happen in the Radcliffe-McFly case. Finally, if there is any one purpose for an encyclopedia, it's to tell the reader why they should care to learn more about a person or event; a false rumor about an actor bad-mouting a band simply (and utterly) fails the test. RadioKirk talk to me 20:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Emma Watson

Yes, sorry, I saw in the edit summary that was what you'd done, but on my Pocket PC it's easy to miss things, and rather than revert I just changed it again as, although I couldn't see the link you'd changed, I knew it was there. --Gary Kirk (talk) 10:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Profile post 2

In response to your message, I didn't mean we have to put the rumour section in the McFly and Radcliffe profiles. We could leave that out of Gates' profile as well, since he has a post about it in his blog for anyone interested to double check. User_talk:Merlov 10:52 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Shatner in Space

I edited the portion of his article regarding his interest in going to space aboard the VSS Enterprise because he himself confirmed that it was never true. I realize his interest in this "trip" was widely reported, but I could find no articles from a legitimite source where he is quoted as confirming the trip. He does, however, confirm that it is not true in the Canadian Times Columnist paper, so I took the portion of the article out. dc 19:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hence my "never mind" edit ;) Sorry 'bout that RadioKirk talk to me 19:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lindsay Lohan Punk'd Reference]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

RE: Lindsay Lohan

Hi! Just wanted to let you know that I reverted your change because the quote already closes. The excerpt ("on tape. Vanity Fair stands by the story.") is a direct quote. Please write with any questions! :) RadioKirk talk to me 16:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. Hope I haven't caused you too much hassle... thanks for your time. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 20:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Nah, not a bit. Happy editing! :) RadioKirk talk to me 21:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 06:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The deletion of data that currently is the subject of a RfM is vandalism and will be reverted as such. RadioKirk talk to me 12:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesse McCartney-Rhoderick Gates Duets

Gates has posted in his blog that yesterday Hollywood Records have suggested he and the American pop singer Jesse McCartney do some duets and he intends to sign up when he's given the contract or details.

Shall we include that in McCartney's profile, like the Career section? user_talk:Merlov 18:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion would be to hold off, especially as concerns pages other than Gates' own (by the way, is there a reason there's no page on Rhoderick Gates?). The reason being: Until contracts are actually signed, this is essentially an "I'd like to do this" tidbit, and that would fail the criteria for relevance—in my opinion. :) RadioKirk talk to me 18:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Duets

I didn't detele the page contents. Do you want the Rhoderick Gates page re-done? You can do it yourself if you wish. I'm going to be busy today and tommorow. User talk:Merlov 10:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Profile Update

I have done the profile page of Rhoderick Gates again, it's the Melbourne Socialist Brigade page that will need attention now, I think. 18:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Both do, the user Deb has deleted the page, just after I finished updating it. 18:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan Siblings

I see no other solution than to put the information and link back in. There is less that one sentence about each of the siblings-- not nearly enough to say that there is too much information on someone other than Lindsay Lohan. In fact, all the information was in the same sentence! The fact that they travel with her and their mother, who is Lindsay's agent, is also VERY relevant because they have uncredited roles in almost all of her movies (also one sentence). Also, the reason why I put the link to Michael's IMDb page (if you read his talk/deletion article) is because people want to delete his page, so I think it's best to just link his page to the IMDb article about him if he doesn't get his own page. Please tell me what you think makes the most sense to do: either give the Lohan kids each their own page (which seems silly because there is only part of a sentence about each of them), or add in their birth years to say how old they are, (and a lot of articles have birth years for siblings, so it's not too much info or irrelevant) and say they're extras in her movies (which they are). Also, what about the link to Michael's IMDb page-- why not just link it to his name? Perhaps we should put a number by it and have the link as an external link? User_talk:Stephe1987

This is not nearly as simple as you are making it seem. First, a lot of articles may indeed have peripheral information about siblings and the like; you will find that is not the case in featured articles (seriously, and please, go read some). Indeed, articles that do have such listings should be cleaned up to remove most (if not all) of them; bad habits in articles are not excuses to spread them to other articles. The external link for Michael absolutely cannot go back; as for her siblings' uncredited exploits in her films, I would be more than happy to file a Request for comment; however, since we once again are talking about the possible delisting of a Featured article due to the relevance (or lack thereof) of the information, I wouldn't hold up hope that your suggestions will survive. Do you wish me to request comment from admins and other users? RadioKirk talk to me 00:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I understand about the link. The site that's about Michael doesn't have very much information on it anyway, but you usually have IMDb pages linked on this site. Oh well. But would it be possible to add in a trivia section to Lindsay's page in order to include the frequently asked information about her siblings? That way it wouldn't take away from the article and information about Lindsay. It would just be a few notes at the bottom of the page-- just a couple of sentences saying how old they are and that they are often in uncredited roles in her movies. User_talk:Stephe1987

Unfortunately, no—that actually creates two problems. First, it still puts information that is irrelevant to Lindsay in her article. Second, you'll find if you read Talk:Lindsay Lohan that the editors who have been discussing an unrelated content issue have made it abundantly clear that a "trivia" section does exactly that to an article—it makes it trivial. I've been trying to think of a solution that doesn't argue with WP:FA and WP:NOT, but nothing's occurred to me yet... RadioKirk talk to me 00:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

=) Okay. As long as something is being discussed to improve this inconsistency in the Wikipedia policy, it's fine with me. The thing is that one of the other editors told me to put in birth years on pages just a couple of months ago, because someone else put ages, and ages change so they accepted my update. Because of this, I thought it would be fine on Lindsay's page, too. But since you are trying to come up with a rule that makes everyone happy and works out the conflicting policies between editors, it's fine with me. Have a great day/evening and thanks for understanding my dilemma! ~Stephe1987

I was just thinking of something... why don't we dump both the Michael I and Michael II articles, take out her siblings' info (other than their names) in the Lindsay Lohan article, and make a Lohan_Family article that has all of their information in it? We could talk about how Lindsay's siblings were extras in movies, Michael Lohan I (because there really isn't enough information on him to have his own article), Michael Lohan II's brief role in The Parent Trap, Dina being Lindsay's manager, and Cody's modeling for Ford. Maybe we could also add Aliana's stuff in the Lohan_Family page, too, until she actually gets her own show like she's planning (and get rid of her article as well because, like Michael I & Michael II, there isn't really enough on her to get her own page). The thing is that people ask about the family, but there really isn't enough information out yet on any of them to have anyone but Lindsay get his/her own article, so why not make one article for all of them?Stephe1987 22:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

We can check with some admins, but I'm nearly 100% positive that the idea won't fly. Making a "family" article would merely be a way to include information that's not relevant for individual articles, and it would in all likelihood be brought up for deletion as a direct result. The elder Michael has an article because his difficulties with the law were widely reported; even then, I wouldn't argue if someone else moved to delete it. Ali has an article that's iffy at the moment, but it's probably being left alone because the likelihood of its replacement (and quite soon) is high. Unfortunately, it's looking as if the data you'd like to add is wrong for Wikipedia and right for where it is already—the IMBd. RadioKirk talk to me 22:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Your excellent defence work on Julie Andrews

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Awarded to RadioKirk for his valiantly tireless reversion of vandalism to Julie Andrews. NicholasTurnbull

Hello there RadioKirk: I thought I'd drop you a line to let you know how much I greatly appreciate your hard work in keeping Julie Andrews clean via your ever-valiant reversion; without the hard work of people like you, Wikipedia would routinely go to rack and ruin. I hereby award you a barnstar for your excellent efforts. Once again, thank you very much. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! :D

Julie Andrews

RE: It seems that this site uses the inappropriate usage of the word vandalism. To present a differing view of a subject is not vandalism. I have only recently joined this at the prompting of another and gave my blog site link. This was done twice, there was not repeated vandalism as you claim. It was only done twice since this site is difficult to navigate and understand right off They seem to feel that what I have to say is unsubstainsiated, solely because it is in blog form. Other than personal remarks on things, There is much research into the rest of it. More so than what is being presented at the fan sites. Julieandrews.org and julieandrews.co.uk, both are unofficial and very one sided as to the real Julie Andrews. Perhaps this is what you want for your site. I don't know. But I would remove the links for those two and any other fan sites that want to put their links up, because they are in severe copyright infringement as to images and articles, both. By having this on your site means you are endorsing their illegal activies.

Sincerely, Foxfyreangel

First, there is (at the moment, anyway) exactly zero citeable "evidence" on either site; and, repeatedly replacing the link after a warning to not do so is indeed vandalism, as has been explained to "Mikko Jack" at Talk:Julie Andrews. Simultaneously, neither site presents "evidence" so much as a "hit piece". This point cannot be stressed enough: while arguably suitable for personal sites and/or blogs, until/unless both evidence and presentation are addressed, neither site will be included in any reputable encyclopedia, including Wikipedia. This is not a "site", this is an online encyclopedia; once again, I implore anyone who wants to get involved here to read WP:NOT (<- this is a link, please, click on it and read). Meantime, I challenge you to tell me what about the cites currently linked at Julie Andrews constitutes "illegal activi[ti]es" (with the possible exception of image copyrights). RadioKirk talk to me 23:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

AW screenshot

I noticed your screenshot of Lindsay Lohan as Alli on Another World, and I wondered how many AW tapes you actually had. I am a BIG fan of the series and I'd like to know if you had any extra tapes you could spare...I'd really appreciate it. Also, you might be interested in the AW userbox.

AWThis user has been taken away to Another World.

Have a nice day! Mike H. That's hot 22:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I wish I could help; I found the cap on lindsayfans.com, which got it through lindsaylohan.net, and it doesn't look like the person who posted it there is still active on the message boards. Someone there (ll.net) might be able to point you in the right direction, though. Good luck! RadioKirk talk to me 23:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Emma Watson Info

Here's what I could find:

• Emma was actually named after her aunt, not her grandmother. So her aunt's name was either Emma or Charlotte. The "Duerre Watson" comes from her parents' last names. The (II) rumors came from IMDb's numbering system and people thought she was named after her mother and then her grandmother, etc. I thought it had to be her paternal grandmother because of the last name (and her mother is Jacqueline), but her mom's maiden name was apparently Duerre, so that was incorrect. I am pretty sure she was actually named after her aunt.
• Emma was born in England, but moved to France for five years right after she was born (which is where the confusion comes from). However, Emma's brother probably was born in France because they were living in France in 1993 when he as born (they lived there from late 1990 to sometime in 1995).
• As far as sources go, nothing on the Internet is reliable, so we'll have to see what Emma says to be sure, but I'm pretty sure what I'm saying now is right.

Stephe1987 04:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. Most of this already was known or presumed but, you're right, "nothing on the Internet is reliable"—or, perhaps even more accurately, "everything on the Internet is suspect". The general consensus when writing Emma's article in particular has been to go with whatever seems most reliable, hence the "paternal grandmother" reference (though I'd have to look it up, I don't recall off the top of my head why it was deemed more reliable than the aunt). I'm still hoping to get something from HPFilms... RadioKirk talk to me 04:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Emma Watson's cats

I've read both that the cats are hers and that one belongs to her brother. Although not hugely important, i figured it was better to phrase it more generally. I mean, technically my cat was my 7th birthday present, but i still think my parents wouldn't find it strange telling people that they had a cat.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoammo (talk • contribs) 

You're right, it's not a big deal; but, I figured it's best to stick with something that's citeable. :) RadioKirk talk to me 15:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

oh, forgot to say. i found a source(http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue238/news.html) and changed it to: "The family own two cats, named Bubbles and Domino, which belong to her and her brother respectively." someone formatted it for me. that was nice.

Amo 01:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I made a minor correction. :) RadioKirk talk to me 01:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser

The arbitrators are discussing this. The arbitrators themselves seem to be too busy and we are having trouble deciding on anyone else to do it. Fred Bauder 15:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks :) RadioKirk talk to me 17:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to about a dozen; how's that? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) RadioKirk talk to me 15:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the way CheckUser is designed, the page loads very slowly each time, so it can take an hour to do one proper check of several userids and related IPs, particularly when Wikipedia is slow (of course it's faster early Sunday morning). I'm trying to get that fixed. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that info, thanks. The main reason I made the request was that the page history suggested no (or very little) arb activity for several days. Another told me that the tool was broken, then tried it and found it working. RadioKirk talk to me 17:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Spam

Don't spam my user talk page please. -- Tim Starling 07:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"[S]pam"?! Reply on your page... RadioKirk talk to me 20:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thank you so much! May I have your permission to reformat it to fit on my User page? :D RadioKirk talk to me 02:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh I am so sorry for the delay in responding; I missed that amongst the various other things on my talk page! Why of course, there's no need to ask. :-) All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem, and, thanks again! RadioKirk talk to me 20:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Emma Watson ADHD

man it's write everywhere on google trust it ! she has ADHD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.168.160 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your comment, but this is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. There is no such thing as "it's ... on [G]oogle trust it". Please read WP:CITE as soon as you can—better yet, go straight here. RadioKirk talk to me 23:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Howdy

Hopefully my deletion and now recreation of your usertalk minus the history and edit of the personal information will help protect this from being available. The old page can be recreated, but your current version shows that I am the sole contributor in your edit history. Let me know if you need anything else in the future.--MONGO 05:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you want, I can restore all the previous edits aside from the one, but this will take more time...let me know what you think.--MONGO 06:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so you're happy with the entire history deleted or do you want me to just have that one edit deleted...as I said, if it's no big deal to you, then I can leave it as it is, but only admins will be able to retrieve your history in full. If I don't hear back, then I'll assume your fine with it the way it is. Happy editing!--MONGO 13:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Buckowensjapan.jpg

I've never encountered such highly exclusional criteria for an image on Wikipedia before... I thought having a pic of one of his Capitol albums illustrated the nearby text about his becoming a Capitol recording artist. Also, in my experience, pictures of products (including albums) are automatically "fair use", more so than more complicated gray areas that surround other types of images. I think the LP cover image is far more valid under "fair use" than the image at the top page that purports to be a "promotional postcard". wikipediatrix 16:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That's primarily because admins are working harder now than before to crack down on what is fair use. Album covers, in particular, are watched very carefully because a large-enough resolution can be copied for the purpose of bootlegging music. See the discussion on this page—Carnildo and Rossrs can answer any additional questions you may have. RadioKirk talk to me 16:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Carnildo's assertion that "as long as the image is high-resolution enough to be useful for us, it's high-resolution enough to infringe copyright". If this was true, there could never be any fair-use images on Wikipedia, ever. Furthermore, it is contradicted by the guidelines one is presented with when uploading an image on Wikipedia in the first place: "album cover" is the one of the fair use options specifically presented in the menu. No admin has, as of yet, complained about my upload of the image in the first place (and believe me, they're VERY quick to pounce on them if they find them suspicious), so why make an issue out of it if they aren't? wikipediatrix 16:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the people who are experts on the subject made an issue of it with me and, sometimes, a "wait for them to deal with it" tack is believed by other editors, as with me in this case, to be potentially harmful to the project (I'm looking out for Wikipedia, not against its editors). My suggestion at this point would be to discuss it further with Carnildo and/or other users/admins for whom this is an area of expertise. RadioKirk talk to me 17:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, as of yet, no admin has objected to the image I uploaded, and until someone does, I don't see what your problem is with it. All images entered into Wikipedia are scrutinized quickly - almost immediately - by these "experts" you speak of. I'm restoring the image until an admin specifically tells me it violates Fair Use, in which case the image should be removed from Wikipedia itself. wikipediatrix 17:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Admin assistance requested. Please understand I have Wikipedia's interests in mind as I pursue this. RadioKirk talk to me 17:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, even as I am inclined to agree with Wikipediatrix apropos of the imputation of fair use here, if you would like an admin to look at the issue, you would likely best be served by placing the "helpme" tag on your talk page (with the attendant braces and without the quotation marks, of course). Cordially, Joe 18:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll do that if needed. :) RadioKirk talk to me 18:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but as User:RadioKirk has asked me for my opinion, here it is. The resolution is not the problem. There is also not a problem with the uploading of album cover images. You are right in saying that the guidelines in uploading say that they can be used under the fair use doctrine. The isssue is in how and where the image is used. In the template that was added to the image it says that fair use is dependent upon certain factors, including that it is used "solely to illustrate the album or single in question". It is not being used "solely to illustrate the album ... in question" as the album itself is not discussed. There are some people that interpret that to mean that it can only be used in an article about the album or single itself, but the template does not actually say that. I think that a fair use claim can be made if the album or its artwork are being discussed, but this is only my opinion. The point is, that in the Buck Owens article this is not the case, so under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines and policies, it does not meet the criteria. If it was possible to include extra text in the article that discusses this album, a fair use claim could perhaps be made. Rossrs 13:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. One question, though: does not the image page itself need a rationale for the claim of fair use (a la the pics at Lindsay Lohan), or is clicking "Album Cover" enough? RadioKirk talk to me 13:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think "Album cover" is enough, at least for now. The main points of the fair use rationale are contained within the template, and I've never seen anyone seriously try to enforce having a set of points added (if anyone did bother, they would be extremely generic, I'm sure). Perhaps because it's being used outside of the context of the album itself, it might be beneficial, but that would only be if the text was expanded to include discussion of the album. It's different with promo pics (and other types of images) as their sources/copyrights/uses are so varied that the rationale serves to clarify. Rossrs 14:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I figured, when it came to a potential copyright issue, that caution was best. :) RadioKirk talk to me 14:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"Caution" is the official Wikipedia policy on such matters ;-) Rossrs 14:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hehe thanks. :) RadioKirk talk to me 14:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Rossrs has said pretty much what I was thinking. :) Extraordinary Machine 21:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

'preciate it, thanku :) RadioKirk talk to me 22:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:ALMP pub.jpg

Hi RadioKirk, are you sure this image is for promotional use? Also, can you provide us with the actual URL for the image? The one provided takes us to a main page but not the image itself. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

As positive as I can be, under the circumstances; and, I've fixed the link on the image page. RadioKirk talk to me 03:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay Links

Dude, why were the fansite links deleted? Anyway, it's not a big deal, just fansites and I was trying to help anyway...a fansite would be good...whatever..do it your way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oth is luv (talk • contribs)

Thanks, but it is the consensus of this article's editors that, with the massive number of Lindsay fansites, we could not list any without listing them all, hence the Yahoo! listing. In addition, many fansites have commercial links that Wikipedia cannot appear to endorse. RadioKirk talk to me 04:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

William Shatner page

I do not think making an observation about the workings of Fate or the existence of coincidence fall into the category of Point of View. The observation that both Shatner and Nimoy shared a guest spot which foreshadowed a fairly auspicious joint career and a lifelong, if emotionally uneven, personal relationship, is an observation, not a point of view. I have no particular attachment to the observation, but the number of coicidences, including their origins and close birthdays, make them and their association a statistical anomaly - at least in the same sample of human lives as chronicled by the Wikipedia and its contributors. Further, a little editorial or stylistic panache makes is not out of place in what is a populist information resource...Aristotelle 06:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Aristotelle

I appreciate your input, but this is an encyclopedia; that kind of writing comes dangerously close to fancruft and does indeed display a point of view. I should mention that I'm a fan of STTOS; however, as an encyclopedia writer, if I was to mention "fate" or a "statistical anomaly", I had better have verifiable sources to back it up. "Fate", as an intangible, is particularly tricky; to introduce the concept at all, it would have to be a direct quote from a recognized expert. It's perfectly acceptable to note that Star Trek eventually led to a lifelong friendship between Shatner and Nimoy, as this is common knowledge. To mention a statistical anomaly requires the statistics to back it up; invoking "fate" or "the stars" or anything similar is simply unencyclopedic. RadioKirk talk to me 12:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Altgens1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Altgens1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 11:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Talk:I'm With You

Sorry I didn't reply. See Talk:I'm With You. Extraordinary Machine 17:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Replied there, thanks. :) RadioKirk talk to me 17:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Buck Owens comma

Normally I don't do this, but I think when you wrote, "By inserting the article 'his', however, the word 'bandmate' becomes a noun," you meant, "By inserting the article 'his', however, you made the word 'bandmate' a noun." (I'm smiling because I think you're a fellow grammar pedant.)

Now to get serious (though I see you've settled the question). In the phrase "his former bandmate Merle Haggard", "Merle Haggard" is not a parenthetical phrase. You can't remove it without changing the meaning; if you remove it, the phrase might be about his former bandmate Joe Shmo. In this it contrasts with the example at the page you referred to. In "the star of the film, Tom Cruise", "the star of the film" identifies the person you're talking about. "Tom Cruise" is just extra information to help out the people who don't know who the star is (probably including me). As that page says, "If the information is necessary, no commas should be used."

I hate to say this, since you used my suggestion, but my suggestion wasn't good. Now the article strongly suggests that Haggard was one of the Buckaroos. If he wasn't, I think you should change it to "Merle Haggard, a onetime bandmate of Owens". I'd do it, but I don't know the facts, and Merle Haggard doesn't mention Owens. —JerryFriedman 22:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

O great experienced user, more experienced than I...

There is currently a little debate going on right now over at the University of British Columbia article and I want to ask a more experienced editor (aka you ;) ) if I am correct in saying that the stuff at the bottom (regarding fraternities and sororities) don't belong as it is simply advertising a school club and not saying anything special about it. I said on the discussion page that the section merits a paragraph, maximum. What I want to ask you is, is this consistent with cases of spam you've seen on Wikipedia? The link is here [8]. I want to know if I have a case here before going further.

Thank you, O great experienced user, more experienced than I. I shall humbly await your response. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 05:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Middle of another issue, I'll get to it soon, sorry. RadioKirk talk to me 15:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Opinion on your talk page shortly :) RadioKirk talk to me 16:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

oops, my mistake

I'm sorry i didnt realize i was changing your edits. I assumed it was the work of another user "cb" who has been throwing "bad faith" accusations around in edit summaries, shouting and screaming with CAPITAL LETTERS etc. After already cleaning up his mess once, discussing it on his talk page, and starting another cleanup operation i discovered he had removed several hours of my painstaking work. Understandably I didn't really appreciate it, hence the "childishness" remarks in the edit summary which were not aimed at you. Anyway everything seems ok right now so alls well that ends well. rgs, Niz 17:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the response. When I saw the reverts at Lindsay Lohan, Karen Dotrice and several other pages changed by or at the direction of User:Zzzzz, I was completely lost. Thanks again. :) RadioKirk talk to me 18:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Karen Dotrice

Lists of films/books/plays/tv shows by an actor/director/writer/producer have always been in chronological order, why do you insist otherwise? All articles (especially featured ones) are like this. Thanks. Catherine breillat 18:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply on your talk page. RadioKirk talk to me 18:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm With You

I noticed that the talk page for I'm With You has been deleted. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. So much for the "merge"... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 20:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, what is going to be done then? Please respond on my talk page, thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Shatner as Denny Crane.jpg

Hi RadioKirk, can you please add the source/copyright info for this image? I know this was probably uploaded way back when, so I'm not listing it for deletion as I know you'll fix it. thanks Rossrs 14:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply on your talk page. :) RadioKirk talk to me 17:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Good articles list

I like the new journalism heading - I moved Seigenthaler Sr there (since he had been listed before as a "Politically significant person", which seemed a bit odd for a man probably best known as a journalist and editor). Nice idea, thanks :) TheGrappler 18:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I figured it was going to happen eventually. :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

ARV

Hey there, sorry I didn't get back to you yesterday, kinda forgot with the downtime + db lock. It appears that you didn't fully install all the needed functions. See the instructions at User:Lightdarkness/ARV Install, make sure you copy the function inc over to your monobook too, as that is the function used to call the aiv.js script from within my userspace. Be sure to do a hard refresh after doing so. If you have any more questions, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. Cheers! --lightdarkness ^(talk) 11:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the function is there now, let me know if a Report tab now appears on user talk pages and contribution pages. Cheers! --lightdarkness ^(talk) 13:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Very odd... You do certainly have a lot in your monobook, and something in there could be conflicting. If you can, open up the Javascript Console (I think it's under the tools heading), clear all the alerts, then view any user talk page. See if it shows you any errors, warnings, or alerts pertaining to the inc function, or the functions listed in User:Lightdarkness/aiv.js. When I get home tonight, if we still haven't figured it out, I'll copy your monobook and try to trouble shoot it. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 16:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, here's what I think we should do. Move my code to the top of your monobook, and it should be able to show up. Then, if any of your other tools break, give me the names of them, and I'll take a look at what is conflicting, at first glance at the error messages, it could be that it's created two instances of a XMLHTTPRequest object, and it might be conflicting, but I can't know for sure yet, since you've included like 20 files, lol. Let me know how that works, and if anything breaks. Cheers --lightdarkness ^(talk) 18:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Lohan fair use pictures

Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy #3 and #8 say: The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible.; The material must contribute significantly to the article. You say: [they] are supported by accompanying text and/or filmography. As I see Image:Lindsaysnl.jpg has just this line: Saturday Night Live - Host of the season finale, 21 May 2005 and Image:Lohan AW.jpg has this: ...in 1996 when she landed the role of Alexandra "Alli" Fowler on Another World, "where she delivered more dialogue than any other 10-year-old in daytime serials" of the time. I think the other screenshots have been discussed in the article and help it, as these two are just for illustration. As I see the article is as good as w/o those 2 images. feydey 22:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I half agree, so you'll note I put one back (with respect). You yourself note, "Image:Lohan AW.jpg has this: ...in 1996 when she landed the role of Alexandra "Alli" Fowler on Another World, 'where she delivered more dialogue than any other 10-year-old in daytime serials' of the time." For a 10-year-old actor, this is a significant milestone unequaled at the time, and I tend to feel its illustration is warranted. Comment? RadioKirk talk to me 22:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well now the image looks pretty relevant and I'd keep it now. feydey 23:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for the assist. :) RadioKirk talk to me 23:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The Philosopher

Thanks for backing me up regarding the Harry Potter issue. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Linking to redirects

Hello. Thanks for the notes on my talk page. My reason for linking the word actress to actress rather than actor is unrelated to this policy that you referred me to. I simply have a belief that Wikipedia should be as easy to use as possible. (Since I joined the project in 2002 it's been going downhill all the way in this regard, which is a large part of the reason I've pretty much left.) My view is that if you want to link to information about X, you should just link to X; the main purpose of redirects, in my view, is that they allow you to do this without worrying about whether or not X is actually an article. The redirect, if there is one, does all the work for you.

And there's another, perhaps more serious, reason. Content moves about all the time. It might be that there is an article at actress one day, but then later it is merged with actor, so that actress redirects to actor, and then later the content might be split out again, and moved back to actress, before finally being merged into defunct professions of carbon-based units after the robots take over. Now, after the first merge, somebody could go through and "fix" all the 47,963 links to actress by changing them to actress. It might seem that, for all practical purposes, nothing had changed (apart from the effort expended by the persons involved, all the pages now taking up just a bit more memory, and, of course, that "redirected from" text not being shown any more), because actress and actress would now both take you to actor. But then after the subsequent demerging, all of these links would now point to the wrong article, and people would have to painstakingly go through all 47,963 links and change them back again just to get them to point to actress again. And similarly for the other moves. If only people had left the links as actress, none of those thousands of edits would have been needed! All that would have to be done would be to make sure the redirect at actress, during the periods when it was a redirect, was pointing the right way.

A bit of a verbose explanation for a rather small point, admittedly, but that's just me, I'm afraid. I hope I've convinced you, though. :) But in any case, I hope you're having fun at Wikipedia, and I wish you luck with it all. I expect I'll be disappearing again now... -- Oliver P. 22:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: DiCaprio

Ah, okay. Looked like pure speculation to me at first. Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 23:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

YES, it was a typo. An honest one at that. It is. :D Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 00:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

IE/Firefox

It operates from an IE base but actually has the browser built into the software so you don't actually have IE open. I have VP open for vandal work yet write articles using FF. Hope this helps. - Glen ^T _C 13:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi RadioKirk/Archive01, thank you for your interest in VandalProof and Congratulations! You are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're ready to go!

If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Once again congrats and welcome to our team! - Glen ^T _C 13:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Spaghetti

I'm not sure if you got the comment I was trying to leave. My computer froze up. To make a long story short I do not see the Wiki Value of the Spaghetti Story, but I see it is a valid entry. I made an entry explaining so to the author on its discussion page...

--merlinus 20:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Merlinus--merlinus 20:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: I got a good laugh today...

Rats, he beat me to it. :P Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 01:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, your userpage is in the format of an article. As a requirement here on Wikipedia, all articles must undergo regularly-scheduled vandalism. :P :) Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 04:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Userbox question

Hi, I saw you had a nice link to the userbox thing on your userpage. I thought this all happened months ago (at least with Jimbo deleting the user boxes) even though people constantly argue about it. Your one link sums it up pretty well. Can you give me some links that best sum the whole issue up (or the controversy and drama and events)--the debate is really really long? DyslexicEditor 16:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there really is no summation, other than my little tirade (grin) so, with apologies, the links on my user page will have to do. If you should find an overview that I've missed, please, pass it on. :) RadioKirk talk to me 16:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Creating

I'm want to create a page called "Planets, Stars and Other Cellestial Objects (Star Trek)" but I do not know how. How do you?

jhfireboy 20:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)